Calvary Chapel of Chino California held  The Southern California Prophecy Conference last week (Feb. 2022, 2009). I wonder if those who came to hear speakers like Tim LaHaye, Mark Hitchcock, Paul McGuire, David Hocking, David Reagan, and Ed Hindson were aware that Chuck Smith, the founder of the Calvary Chapel network of churches, made some very definite predictions about when the rapture was going to take place.

While cleaning up my office, I came across a cassette tape of a sermon Chuck Smith preached on December 31, 1979. He told his very accepting audience on that day that the rapture would take place in 1981. The former Soviet Republic going into Afghanistan in August of 1978 was the prelude to what Smith considered to be a full-force invasion of the Middle East. It would not be long before Russia would invade Israel, Smith told his audience. All of this was said to have been predicted by Ezekiel 2600 years ago.

Smith went on to claim in his end-of-the-year message of 30 years ago that because of ozone depletion Revelation 16:8 would be fulfilled during the soon-coming Great Tribulation: And the fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. According to Smith, Halleys Comet would pass near the earth in 1986 and would wreck atmospheric havoc for those left behind as debris from its million-mile tail pummeled the earth. Halleys Comet did appear in 1986 with no damage done to our planet. (A similar prelude to the end had been predicted based on the so-called Jupiter Effect.[1]) ...

but the fact is that almost every Protestant church or denomination with legitimate, direct ties to the reformation (from Lutheran to Reformed to Presbyterian) has rejected and warned its members about the many, pernicious errors of dispensationalism.

Just like the Catholic Church has warned all of its members about the many, pernicious errors of the Reformed Church and the Orthodox Jews have warned all of its members about the many, pernicious errors of Christianity.

Considering most dispensational theologians from DTS for the first century were themselves Presbyterian ordained ministers, I think I see a trend here.

202
posted on 02/28/2009 10:55:03 AM PST
by Cvengr
(Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)

Has the leopard changed his spots? Here are some quotes from recent columns by Hal Lindsey in WND.

An EMP attack by Iran on Israel, the U.S. and EU would overnight send the most technically developed nations on earth back to the middle of the 19th century. All our electrical grids would be destroyed. There would be no communications by satellite, TV, radios, telephones; no transportation as we know it, no water, no fuel, no electricity, no food, no stoves, no heat, no air-conditioning, no functioning hospitals, no elevators, no law and order, no computers, no banks, very little work force. In addition, there would be very few military weapons systems that would work. ...

I never thought I would say this, but just maybe this is the reason that in chapter 38 of Ezekiel he predicts that the armies that invade Israel in the last days are all riding horses . Could it be that Ezekiel's prophecy is more literal than any of us dared to believe? (February 20, 2009)

Of all the generations in history, it is to this generation that the prophecies of the last days are addressed. Previous generations looked for the signs given by Scripture, but only this generation can truly see them all come together at one time  which is itself a key fulfillment of prophecy. {Lindsey used to believe this generation started in 1948 and would end around 1988. Has he ever redefined what he means by this phrase in light of his earlier misstatements?}

The Prophet Daniel predicted these conditions: "And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, 'Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.'" (Daniel 12:8-9) We are witnessing the "unsealing" of the end-times prophecies . (February 06, 2009)

If the present economic crisis continues to spiral downward into a world depression, as experts reluctantly admit will happen, it can indeed be the "transformational crisis" that forces the world to accept a totally centralized control of a cashless society . All that remains, then, is for the anointed leader the Bible calls the antichrist to step forward and take over.

The Apostle John, under the inspiration of God's Spirit, predicted these things 2,000 years ago on the small island of Patmos. Now what seemed impossible for nearly 20 centuries is developing right before our eyes. (January 30, 2009)

Lindsey's well-established pattern is to comment on current event items and then make a tenuous yet tortured connection to the Bible. A careful examination of the Scripture in each of these cases will demonstrate that they do not back up Lindsey's assertions. E.g., the is no picture of a cashless society in the book of Revelation. One must already have that idea in mind when approaching the text to find it there. Same thing with EMP weapons and invaders on horses. EMP weapons would not make modern soldiers prefer swords over small arms ala Ezekiel 38.

Only the most biblically illiterate person would take Lindsey's commentaries seriously.

The irony in this authors comments is that while the author decries the allegorical method because it requires a secret meaning that only the super spiritual can understand,

Here, you're mistaken again...There is no 'secret meaning' that only the super spiritual (whatever that is) can understand...If you follow Origen, the author of allegorical interpretation, you'll see that he and his ilk did NOT have a meaning for everything he called allegorical...He just pretended for the most part that it didn't exist...He was clueless, OR, he didn't like what he read and convinced that Church to ignore those scriptures...

he fails to realize that this dispensational way of interpreting the Bible requires it own gnosis, or secret meaning.

Absolutely,,,NOT...Dispensationalism is the only way everything fits...With your method (whatever that is) you have to claim God was mistaken when He said a millennium is a thousand years...Or He just pitched out a meaningless number...And then you have to throw out Romans 11...

With Dispensationalism, you can read the plain speaking in Romans 11 and see that God will turn back to Israel...And when does this happen??? Well in the millennium, of course...It all fits...

And you know what??? It ain't no secret...It's right there in your face, to accept, or reject...

You remember reading that Jesus said, Don't be ignorant...A day is equal to a thousand years??? Jesus knows exactly what a thousand years is...And when He says a thousand years is a thousand years, you can take that to the bank...

207
posted on 02/28/2009 3:49:27 PM PST
by Iscool
(I don't understand all that I know...)

Rev 13:17 (17) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Looks pretty consistent to watch for such things as a sign of the times.

But this is not a reference to a cashless society as Lindsey suggests. It says nothing at all about being cashless. (Of course Lindsey real problem is the unwarranted literalism he tries to apply to the passage.)

Besides, we read elsewhere in Revelation words like this:

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine." (Rev. 6:6)

Note the reference to a denarius, a common form of money back in the 1st century. How does on get a cashless society is denarii are still being used?

The denarius stopped being minted back in the 3rd century AD. This is yet another reason to think that if you are not reading Revelation in a preterist manner you are really missing the story big time.

I also find it amusing to read Lindsey's take on the passage in Daniel 12, "Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." He claims we are living in the time of the unsealing. Yet what does Mr. Lindsey make of a similar passage in Rev. 22, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand." The meaning of that verse is undeniable. John was not to seal the prophecy because the very thing of which it was speaking was just about to take place. You can't have it both ways, Hal.

Lindsey is still clueless. His ideas on eschatology are worthless, biblically speaking.

Besides, most of the Reformers were former Roman Catholics. So what is your point?

As theology is advanced, faith upon faith, we have growth in the Body of Christ, the Church. The same topic has been observed by James Orr in The Progress of Dogma, pp. 21-31.

Has it ever struck you...what a singular parallel there is between the historical course of dogma, in the one hand, and the scientific order of the text-books on a systematic theology on the other? The history of dogma, as you speedily discover is simply the system of theology spread out over the centuries...and this not only as regards its general subject-matter, but even as respects the definite succession of its parts. ...One thing, I think it shows unmistakenly, viz., that neither arrangement is arbitrary--that there is law and reason underlying it; and another thing which forces itself upon us is, that the law of these two developments--the logical and the historical is the same.

....the second century in the history of the Church--what was that? The age of Apologetics and of the vindication of the fundamental ideas of all religion--of the Christian especially--in conflict with Paganism and with the Gnostics.

We pass to the next stage in the development, and what do we find there? Just what comes next in the theological system--Theology Proper--the Christian doctrine of God, and specially the doctrine of the Trinity. This period is covered by the Monarchian, Arian, and Macedonian contraversies of the third and fourth centuries. ...What comes next? As in the logical system theology is succeeded by Anthropology, so in the history of dogma the controversies I have named are followed in the beginning of the fifth century by the Augustinian and Pelagian controversies, in which ...the centre of interest shifts from God to man. ...From the time of Augustine's death we see the Church entering on that long and distracting series of controversies known as Christological---Nestorian, Eutychian, Monophysite, Monothelite--which kept it in continual ferment, and rent it with the most unchristlike passions during the fifth and sixth, on even till near the end of the seventh, centuries. Theology, Anthropology, Christology have each had its day--in the order of the theological system, which the history still carefully follows, [but] it was not the turn of Soteriology...[until] the next step, that taken by the Reformers in te development of doctrine of the Application of Redemption. This ...is the next great division in the theological system. What now shall I say of the remaining branch of the theological system, the Eschatological? An Eschatology, indeed, there was in the early Church, but it was not theologically conceived; and a Mythical Eschatology there was in the Mediaevil Church--an Eschatology of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory...but the Reformation swept this away, and, with its sharply contrasted states of bliss and woe, can hardly be said to have put anything in its place or even to have faced the very distinctly the difficulties with the problem. ...Probably I am not mistaken in thinking that, besides the necessary revision of the theological system as a whole, which could not properly be undertaken till the historical development I have sketched had run its course, the modern mind has given itself with special earnestness to eschatological questions, moved thereto, perhaps, by the solemn impression that on it the ends of the world have come, and tht some great crisis in the history of human affairs in approaching."

210
posted on 02/28/2009 4:08:06 PM PST
by Cvengr
(Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)

As theology is advanced, faith upon faith, we have growth in the Body of Christ, the Church. The same topic has been observed by James Orr in The Progress of Dogma, pp. 21-31.

It's an interesting theory, but it still does not demonstrate that futurist dispensationalism is on the right path. There are competing eschatologies that are getting as much if not more airtime in the conservative/evangelical churches, esp. among those who are self-identified with the Protestant reformation. Also, the rise of progressive dispensationalism makes it clear that many folks are not satisfied with the implications of the futurist system as taught by folks like Ryrie and Walvoord, not to mention the sensationalist proponents like Lindsey and Hagee.

I would just point out that there is no way you get the millennium into Romans 11 without blindly appling the presuppositions of futurism.

Nothing blindly at all...Romans 11 says something is going to happen in the future with the Jews, AFTER He is done with us Gentiles...So we know that hasn't happened yet...

There's far, far too much scripture in both Testaments that allude to the reign of Jesus Christ on earth to deny it...

You guys claim that scripture doesn't mean what it says but yet you can't tell us what it does mean (with any definition that's reasonable or believable, or lines up with any other scripture or history)...

215
posted on 03/01/2009 4:46:13 PM PST
by Iscool
(I don't understand all that I know...)

Nothing blindly at all...Romans 11 says something is going to happen in the future with the Jews, AFTER He is done with us Gentiles...So we know that hasn't happened yet...

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. Some people interpret the phrase until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in to be a reference to the millennium or some such era, but the text does not plainly or literally say that. Some people interpret this to speak of some time in the future, but, again, that is purely an interpretation based partly on some preconceived ideas of what ought to happen to Jews in the future.

There's far, far too much scripture in both Testaments that allude to the reign of Jesus Christ on earth to deny it...

There is a lot of symbolic language that some folks falsely interpret literally to refer to Jesus reigning in body on the earth. Problem is there is absolutely nothing in the NT to support that idea. Jesus and His apostles were not literalists, in the modern sense. They interpreted most of the OT prophecies about Messiah symbolically to refer to the present reign of Christ over the nations. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:23-25.

You guys claim that scripture doesn't mean what it says ...

And you guys claim it says what it doesn't plainly or literally say. You have to drink the futurist dispensational kool aid to get to where you guys end up.

In case you have not noticed, God doesnt need to remove one people from the earth to reconcile. He is quite capable of doing both, as is evidenced from the entire NT when Jews and gentiles came together with the salvation of God to form one new man, the Church.

"one new man, the Church??? Yikes. I know that is what your English Bible says, but surely you know that ekklesia is not a new entity in Acts. Surely, you are well-enough trained in church tradition, and in the actual text to know that what you reference is tradition, as opposed to what the text actually says? Surely, you have read the LXX and know the word ekklesia is used to refer to the people of Israel. Surely, you know the word ekklesia is used by Stephen to refer to Israel? Surely, you know the word ekklesia is used by Jesus not "prophetically" in Matthew 16 (Calvinists hate prophecy don't you know), but rather was refering to His congregation - the people of Israel? Surely you know that Jesus says that "Salvation is of the Jews" and apart from Israel, you don't have a hope? Surely you know that Paul says the same thing - without hope, stranger to the covenants of promise...Surely, you know that "one new man" is the antenicean code phrase for "Gentiles only"?

Surely, you know all of that? Or are you still wearing Justin Martyr's anti-Israel glasses?

"one new man, the Church??? Yikes. I know that is what your English Bible says, but surely you know that ekklesia is not a new entity in Acts.

Notice I said "new man" not new entity. I was quoting Paul in Ephesians 2. I'm well aware of the etymology of the word ekklesia and its reference to the old covenant assembly.

Church is ekklesia. The new man is Jews and Greeks on equal ground within the ekklesia (Gal. 3:28,29). This is the true commonwealth of Israel, the household of God. The NT distinctive is that race no longer playa any part in the makeup of the new covenant ekklesia.

Surely, you know all of that? Or are you still wearing Justin Martyr's anti-Israel glasses?

“Chuck Smith preached on December 31, 1979. He told his very accepting audience on that day that the rapture would take place in 1981.”

In the 1970’s there was allot of this going on from the pulpits and from Christian writers. Christian book stores had shelves full of end-time prophecy books. Many of us got caught up in reading those books. Nothing wrong with that, after all we could see it was a rapidly changing world and things did seem to be lining up for the great conclusion of world events. Picking dates things were to happen though was not a smart move and Smith joined many others who did so. Which leads me to this question. Why are we picking on him these many years later?

In the 1970s there was allot of this going on from the pulpits and from Christian writers. Christian book stores had shelves full of end-time prophecy books. Many of us got caught up in reading those books. Nothing wrong with that, after all we could see it was a rapidly changing world and things did seem to be lining up for the great conclusion of world events. Picking dates though was not a smart move, and Smith joined many others who did so. Which leads me to this question. Why are we picking on him these many years later?

I don't want to get caught up in this useless debate on exactly what was prophecy saying about how the end times would play out. We come from different churches, and its not expected that we all think the same way on this subject. As long as we believe in the essentials of what being a Christian is. Seems every time the subject of Bible prophecy comes up on FR, we get in this win less battle of who's right. That's pretty sad.

I do want to say though, that back in the 1970’s and early 80’s when I got caught up into reading the shelves full of Bible prophecy books, some of the things being written about was very obvious, but other things like a cashless society where you could use one card to purchase from any country in the World, and the coming Antichrist. How could one person be so popular he would be accepted around the world and by all but the strongest Christians will be fooled? Both seems far fetched at the time. Both were mysteries.

Not any more. I now go around all the time with no paper cash in my wallet, and with Obama coming out of nowhere to being literally worshiped by millions, thought the world, that mystery has been solved. Not saying Obama is the Antichrist, but it does show you how quickly and easily the real One can enter the World stage.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. Some people interpret the phrase until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in to be a reference to the millennium or some such era, but the text does not plainly or literally say that. Some people interpret this to speak of some time in the future, but, again, that is purely an interpretation based partly on some preconceived ideas of what ought to happen to Jews in the future.

OK, I'll play...What then does it mean???

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,

What's that mean??? Blindness in part has come to Israel...

until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

Until obviously means future...Did it happen??? When??? Will it happen??? Or does it mean something else entirely???

There is a lot of symbolic language that some folks falsely interpret literally to refer to Jesus reigning in body on the earth. Problem is there is absolutely nothing in the NT to support that idea. Jesus and His apostles were not literalists, in the modern sense. They interpreted most of the OT prophecies about Messiah symbolically to refer to the present reign of Christ over the nations. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:23-25.

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Is this symbolic??? Or did Jesus show up like you guys claim in 70 A.D.??? And did all dead folks come alive at that time???

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

According to this, the Kingdom doesn't get delivered until Jesus puts down all rule, power and authority...And put ALL His enemies under his feet...So what's up with all this stuff??? And what about blinding Israel, and the fullness of the Gentiles???

225
posted on 03/02/2009 6:08:46 AM PST
by Iscool
(I don't understand all that I know...)

It could mean any number of things depending on whether or not you interpret it in the light of the rest of Scripture. Ill just point out that there is nothing about the millennium in the passage. There is nothing about a distinct period of time after until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. In fact it is not even clear from the passage that the phrase until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in is intended to denote a period of time as opposed to, say, some condition then present within the covenant community. Its impossible to interpret the phrase all Israel without reference to Pauls earlier arguments (cf. Rom. 9:6,7).

The point of my comment was to show how your earlier claim of not interpreting but rather just plainly reading the text is simply not the case.

I don't want to get caught up in this useless debate on exactly what was prophecy saying about how the end times would play out.

But thats what pop futurism is all about.

I do want to say though, that back in the 1970s and early 80s when I got caught up into reading the shelves full of Bible prophecy books, some of the things being written about was very obvious,

I grew up with the same 70s pop prophecy stuff and I must admit they seemed obvious as well, until I started reading the Bible and thinking for myself. I soon discovered all this obvious stuff held no biblical weight. It was better suited for fiction. Tim LaHaye proved correct on that score.

How could one person be so popular he would be accepted around the world and by all but the strongest Christians will be fooled? Both seems far fetched at the time. Both were mysteries.

Both still seem far fetched to me. Just look at how quickly the Dems turn on Obama when they perceive they are not getting all they were promised. Besides, the futurist version of antichrist is characterized by popularity. That does not at fit the biblical description. The futurist antichrist is a myth, as are most of the scenarios pushed by futurists, whether in fiction or in their teaching materials.

Its easy to find prophetic fulfillment in current events if your framework -- your starting point -- is a myth.

In the 1970s there was allot of this going on from the pulpits and from Christian writers. Christian book stores had shelves full of end-time prophecy books. Many of us got caught up in reading those books. Nothing wrong with that, after all we could see it was a rapidly changing world and things did seem to be lining up for the great conclusion of world events. Picking dates though was not a smart move, and Smith joined many others who did so. Which leads me to this question. Why are we picking on him these many years later?

Well, to begin with, to the best of my knowledge Smith and Hal Lindsey have never apologized for their mistake and have never said why they were wrong. Folks with a sort memory think all is well when it is not.

Also, the interpretative methodology that leads folks like Smith and Lindsey to conclude 1988 would be the year of Christs return has never been repudiated by the larger futurist camp. All folks are doing is adjusting the starting date. Its moved from 1948 (the establishment of Israel) to 1967 (the six day war and recovering of Jerusalem) to ???, and the length of time of a generation has undergone an (unjustified) expansion from 40 years to 70 years to ???.

It is the methodology that is flawed. Hence the rise of progressive dispensationalists who are trying to rework the methodology to be more biblical. What they are telling us is that covenant theology has been closer to the truth than folks have wished to admit. In many ways the progressives are closer to covenant theologians than they classic dispensational brethren (they have toned down the rhetoric on the radical distinction between Israel and the Church).

The fundamental problem is placing any prophetic significance on modern Israel. As long as futurist as wedded to modern Israel they will always get it wrong. And they will keep writing and selling books every time the conditions requires. And they will keep finding a new boogeyman. And they will continue to miss the mark.

And then there is the fact that these fundamental flaws appear regularly in this forum.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

The text is quite plain. Christ first (aka the first resurrection, that, we know is past), and those who are Christs at His coming (Second coming that is, not rapture), and then the end when the kingdom is delivered up to the Father. At this point all rule and authority has been put in subjection to the Son. For He must reign  in Pauls mind this was a present, not future reality. Christ is reigning and subduing the nations (Rom. 15:11,12). Thats the point of the passage. Cf. Matt. 28:18ff, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Most futurists want to insert between 1000 and 1007 years somewhere into that passage, in spite of the fact that the apostle Paul knows of no such chronology. Now, you tell me whether that is the true reading of the passage, or a forced interpretation based on preconceived ideas of the millennium.

The text is quite plain. Christ first (aka the first resurrection, that, we know is past),

and those who are Christs at His coming (Second coming that is, not rapture),

and then the end when the kingdom is delivered up to the Father.

in Pauls mind this was a present, not future reality.

How could you possibly say that in view of the surrounding scripture??? The second coming of Jesus has NOT taken place...Paul KNEW the 2nd coming had not taken place...He certainly would have been preaching a different message had he believed that...

Paul would have been preachin that Jesus was here for the 2nd time and now we are waiting for the the Kingdom to be delivered up to the Father...And that is NOT what Paul is preaching...

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Were all men made alive in Christ, at His 2nd coming in 70 A.D.??? Of course not...

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,

Paul is talking future...That's clear...

even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

At this point all rule and authority has been put in subjection to the Son. For He must reign 

Paul just disagreed with you...There is no 'at this point'...The END must first come...

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

SHALL BE...FUTURE...Paul did not believe nor teach the Kingdom had been delivered to God nor did he teach Jesus was reigning over the nations...

Paul says this happens after the END...

And the END hasn't happened yet...

232
posted on 03/02/2009 1:21:38 PM PST
by Iscool
(I don't understand all that I know...)

How could you possibly say that in view of the surrounding scripture??? The second coming of Jesus has NOT taken place...Paul KNEW the 2nd coming had not taken place...He certainly would have been preaching a different message had he believed that...

I suspect part of the trouble is your bad cut and paste job on my comments. I never said the Second Coming has already taken place. I said this:

For He must reign  in Pauls mind this was a present, not future reality.

I said that the first resurrection (i.e., Christ's resurrection) has already taken place, and that Christ is presently reigning over the nations bringing them into subjection.

Christ has been raised from the dead. Thus the phrase, Christ, the firstfruits. Our resurrection is still in the future, those who are Christ's at His coming. All believers from all time are raised to newness of life at the Second Coming. Then comes the end. Not, then there is a thousands years of quasi-peace with Jesus reigning in Jerusalem and then comes the end. The end means the end when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

The rest of your comments are all based on your faulty reading of what I wrote, so I'll let them slide.

--As the Dispensationalist does: Before: Israel; Now: the "Church"; in the Future: Israel

We don't think Abraham, Moses, and David were Christians (or proto-Christians).

We know the "saving" faith of those listed in Hebrews 11 is identical to the "saving" faith that those who follow the Messiah of Israel have today.

We know that Messiah did not abolish any part of Scripture, and we don't think "fullfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18) means "done away with" or "rendered moot."

Most of all, we know that disciple is to imitate his Teacher - and when perfectly trained will be like Him. Which means, if He is a humble, merciful, and observant Jew - (even if we are Gentile) we should strive to be and live like Him... all at the expense of humanly contrived creeds, statements of "I believe" etc.

Humility and grace are the characteristics of truth. And for the record, I am neither Supercesionist or Dispensationalist. I am a whole Bible follower of Messiah.

And now you speak with humility and grace when you claim:

We don't cut the Bible into parts:

Of course you do. When was the last time you killed an animal and spread the blood on the doorposts or your house according to the Law of Moses? When was the last time you stoned an adulterer to death according to the Law of Moses? When was the last time you went to a Levite to have your skin disease investigated? When was the last time you observed any of the Levitical holy days according to the Law of Moses?

In light of this, it's a bit disingenuous to say you don't cut the Bible into parts, don't you think?

We don't think Abraham, Moses, and David were Christians (or proto-Christians).

Abraham was a Christian. Jesus said so Himself when He told the unbelieving Jews, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8:56).

We know the "saving" faith of those listed in Hebrews 11 is identical to the "saving" faith that those who follow the Messiah of Israel have today.

As do most Christians.

We know that Messiah did not abolish any part of Scripture, and we don't think "fullfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18) means "done away with" or "rendered moot."

Of course you do. Thre is much in the Law that you do not observe according to Moses. See above.

Which means, if He is a humble, merciful, and observant Jew -

But you are confused. Jesus never asked anyone to be an observant Jew like Him. In fact it is impossible to be an observant Jew like Jesus. There is no temple. There are no Levites. There is no sacrifice. None of the conditions that made keeping the Law possible in the days of Jesus exist today. The temple is gone, destroyed forever by God's will. The new covenant is the operative basis for coming to God today. Jews and Greeks on equal standing.

Best you can do today is to be an observant Jew according to the rules of the rabbis who know not Jesus. Jesus never told anyone to be like that.

Everyone is a supersessionist or dispensationalist to a certain degree.

Of course you do. When was the last time you killed an animal and spread the blood on the doorposts or your house according to the Law of Moses?

First, what is the "Law of Moses" - I will assume you are speaking categorically, and not prejoritively since the most often repeated phrase in all of Scripture is, "The L-RD spoke to Moses, speak to the children of Israel saying..." It is the "Law of the L-RD."

If you knew the Torah, you would know that to offer animals outside of the confines and protocols of the Tabernacle/Temple is against the Torah. And yes, when the Temple is rebuilt I would hope to go and draw near. In fact, the way the commandment is given, it is obedience to NOT make offerings outside of the Temple. Also, if you knew the Torah, then you would know that individual offerings are voluntary, with few exceptions... so you won't have to go... But the first Apostles would quibble with you over it. They went, and offered offerings as long as 20 years after Jesus ascended. Read Acts 21-22.

The temple is gone, destroyed forever by G-d's will.

But of course a Supercessionist would completely ignore whole chapters of the holy Scripture if they do not fit with their prepackaged theology. Ezekiel 4-48. Ezekiel 37, Zexchariah 14. Isaiah 2, Malachi 4, etc.

Everyone is a supersessionist or dispensationalist to a certain degree.

I can assure you, we are not. Not even the slightest. It is quite refreshing to read Scripture as valid, and timeless... as eternal words of life coming from the Eternal G-d. You should try it. It will make you a happier and more contented person. Certainly, there is something to learn from the "most humble of all men" - Moses (Numbers 12).

First, what is the "Law of Moses" - I will assume you are speaking categorically, and not prejoritively since the most often repeated phrase in all of Scripture is, "The L-RD spoke to Moses, speak to the children of Israel saying..." It is the "Law of the L-RD."

Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. (Luke 2:22)

There are many NT references to the Law of Moses.

If you knew the Torah, you would know that to offer animals outside of the confines and protocols of the Tabernacle/Temple is against the Torah.

Well, yes and no. The first Passover was not in the context of the tabernacle/temple. And it is impossible to have a Passover today without imposing the traditions of men on the activity. God left no rules for how to keep an ersatz Passover.

The fact is that you are not observant according to the command of God, but according to the traditions of men. That is what you are left with for the last 2000 years since Jesus

Best you can do today is to be an observant Jew according to the rules of the rabbis who know not Jesus. Jesus never told anyone to be like that.

I apologize, I did not know that you also removed Matthew 23 from your Bible. If you followed well-documented First Century history, you would know that the Pharisee party is what reconstituded Judaism in 70 CE in Yavneh under Yochanan ben Zachia [John son of Zacheus].So, there is an unbroken line from 30 CE to modern times. You may want to order a set of Talmud, you have some catching up to do < grin >.

Matthew 23:1-3: When Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

In all seriousness, the Talmud records Jewish believers in Messiah living among and worshipping with normative Judaism well into the Sixth Century CE. They sure weren't welcome in normative Christianity... John Chrystostom and ilk made sure of that (you know John, the "Doctor of the Church" - he learned his hatred of Jews from the most noted Justin Martyr's theology).

And it is impossible to have a Passover today without imposing the traditions of men on the activity. God left no rules for how to keep an ersatz Passover.

If you knew those "traditions of men" you would know what Matthew 27 is all about. And yes, "keeping Passover" is impossible in its fullest sense, but if you knew the Torah you would know that remembering what cannot be observed because of obedience to another command (not offering outside of the Temple) is considered obedience. I am assuming that you never read Numbers 9? G-d is well-pleased with those who make every effort to obey Him.

And if you knew the Torah (yes, it is called the Law of Moses, but most often outside of the biblical context it is used to promote the idea that it is NOT the Law of G-d), you would know that after the first Passover is where G-d made it clear that it would never be permitted again outside of the Tabernacle/Temple.

As for "observance" - we do make every effort to keep the commandments of G-d. Do we fail in that sometimes? Of course. So did David, and yet his love for the Law of Moses is an embarrassment that must be recast by Supercessionists when read in Psalms 1, Psalms 19, Psalms 119 etc.

So when was the last time you kept the eternal Feast of the L-RD of Yom T'ruah? [Feast of Trumpets"]. It isn't a tradition of men - but an eternal appointment with the Almighty. So, tell me why don't you keep that? No Temple needed for that... And after all, Jesus kept it... Why don't you honor Scripture that way? Did Jesus tell you not to?

If you knew those "traditions of men" you would know what Matthew 27 is all about.

Come again.

G-d is well-pleased with those who make every effort to obey Him.

Even if it means inventing traditions that He has not authorized. I believe that is what got the Pharisees into so much trouble with Jesus. They tried to be holier than the Law.

I guess Deut. 4:2 isn't in your Bible.

As for "observance" - we do make every effort to keep the commandments of G-d.

According to the traditions of men.

So when was the last time you kept the eternal Feast of the L-RD of Yom T'ruah?

Why should I be made to carry your self-imposed burden? I do not need to. That is the blessing of the gospel. Jesus kept the Law perfectly and has fulfilled all the old covenant ceremonies, since there only purpose was to point to Him. They were but shadows and have passed away (Col. 2:16,17; Heb. 8:13).

I do not labor under the same misunderstanding that you do regarding ceremonial law keeping and the new covenant.

I apologize, I did not know that you also removed Matthew 23 from your Bible.

You labor under the delusion that there are still men today who sit in the seat of Moses. We are not living in the first century. The Pharisees no longer exist as a political party. While the temple stood folks were under the authority of the temple order. But Christ abolished the temple system once and for all. The greater Temple is with us and we worship Him in spirit and truth.

The Talmud was authored by your apostate Jews who rejected Messiah and found every excuse to deny He had come in the flesh as the God-man to redeem His people. As the Jewish convert Alfred Edersheim wrote referring to the Talmud: He who has thirsted and quenched his thirst at the living fount of Christs Teaching, can never again stoop to seek drink at the broken cisterns of Rabbinism.

The bottom line of biblical eschatology can be summed up in a few verses, e.g.,

21 Then Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." 23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11)

When Israel or antichrist rather than Jesus Christ becomes the focus of all the eschatology talk, you know you have a problem.

Exactly! And this bears repeating over and over and over again.

If I may expand:There is nothing wrong with disagreements over post-mil, preterist, amil, and historic pre-mil eschatologies. Anytime that an eschatology focuses on CNN, Fox News, the AP, etc... to try squeezing out fulfillment of Scripture - whenever an eschatology looks to the Jerusalem Post to learn about the endtimes - that eschatology develops a new theology that attempts to extend God's grace to those not in Christ. According to this twisted theology Jesus, our Redeemer, our Savior, the Messiah is not needed universally. That is the core problem with dispensation theology. All other perversions of the Scripture are logical fallicies resulting from that perversion of God's Grace and application of justice.

246
posted on 03/03/2009 8:21:19 AM PST
by raynearhood
("I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels" -John Calvin)

Since all of history is His Story, Dispensational Theology DOES focus upon His Plan and our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

That statement is nonsense. Anyone can make a nonsense statement like that:

Since all of history is His Story, Jehovah Witness Theology DOES focus upon His Plan and our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

Since all of history is His Story, Open Theist Theology DOES focus upon His Plan and our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

See?

That is a silly argument and precisely why it wasn't the argument I was making (by answering Lee N. Field's reply you were, by default, answering my reply).

Any one systematic theology is not the object of our worship, rather our object is through faith in Him, by His Word.

If only that were true, then no-one would have such diametrical opposition to dispensational theology.

By separating the OT from the NT, and by splitting the Covenant of God into two separate covenants (one Covenant with Israel and one with the Church as opposed to the Old Covenant being PERFECTED in the New Covenant) dispensational theology makes an argument for the negation of the redemptive work of Christ relative to the nation state of Israel. According to dispensation theology, God is going to fulfill His promise to Israel during the millennial rule of Christ. No need for faith in the Cross, God will redeem the nation state.

But, the FACT is, God has fulfilled His promise to Israel by establishing the New Covenant.

Hebrews 8 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

8For finding fault with them, He says, BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; 9NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. 10"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 11"AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 12"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."

13When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Now, the decendants of Abraham are nothing, the circumcision is nothing, the Old Covenant is nothing. It was a shadow of what was to come and it has passed away. Salvation is for those whose heart is circumcised by the Spirit, the circumcision of the flesh has no more meaning.

Romans 228For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

It is through faith, not descent, that one is justified. The true descendents of Abraham, the heirs of the Old Covenant, are the faithful in Christ... not the circumcised in flesh.

Romans 4:7"BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.8"BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

9Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

13For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.14For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;15for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

16For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17(as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

18In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE." 19Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; 20yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 23Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, 24but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

The descedents of the circumcision of the flesh are waiting for the fulfillment of a promise that has already been fulfilled and they will be judged according to the Law. Dispensationalists are waiting on the same thing to happen for the Jews. God will not fulfill His promise to Israel in the future because He already has. That work is completed through the work of Christ.

All of dispensationalism hangs on the belief that the reestablishment of the nation state Israel is the moving principle by which prophecy is being fulfilled. All follow on erroneous dispensation theology interpretations of the endtimes hangs on the misguided interpretation of Scripture that God's Covenant through the circumcision of the flesh has not been fulfilled.

But the nation state Israel is not the Israel of the Covenant of God. They are not heirs to the promise. We are. End of story.

249
posted on 03/04/2009 7:49:03 AM PST
by raynearhood
("I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels" -John Calvin)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.